Re: How about pptp-linux? (was: Why was libpam-pgsql removed from the woody lineup?)
On Tue 09 Apr 2002, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:57:00AM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > >
> > > On a related note:
> > > No one's responded to my question as to why pptp-linux was removed.
> > > Its last RC bug was resolved already by the version in testing before it
> > > was removed from testing. It's a pretty important package for those who
> > > use ADSL, at least here in the Netherlands.
> >
> > I heard a rumour that it was removed because kernel-patch-mppe is buggy
> > and pptp-linux claims in its description that it needs that. I have no
> > idea whether that's the real reason.
Hmm, that must have been added at some point, it didn't have that in its
description when I last needed it (read: built the sid version on a
potato system for a client).
Besides, it never depended on kernel-patch-mppe.
> The problem (AFAI remember) is that pptp is able to communicate with M$
> pptp clients when some features are enabled. From /etc/ppp/pptpd-options:
[....]
> to have these options working and so to be able to accept M$ clients as
> well (it might be that they can connect without it as well - I have not
> checked) you need to apply the mppe kernel patch.
>
> Again - pptp works fine without that, you only have to disable these
> options in the default config file, which has been done:
>
> pptpd (1.1.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
Ummm... I was talking about pptp-linux (the client).
You seem to be talking about the server...
Paul Slootman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: